Laying Siege to the Classics
I've got about fifty pages left in Hugh Kennedy's "When Baghdad Ruled The Muslim World" and I'll try to take the time to finish it up tonight. I'll finish the book on principle though. A pride thing, you can't truly judge a book until you've completed the last page. Scholars might point out that it's important to read the bibliography to understand the sources of his material. In this case I did read it and found that there were only a few primary sources and a rather longer list of secondary sources. Okay. So what? Should I go track these sources down and read them myself to see if I reach the same conclusions? Hell, I don't know. My personal biases would lead me off into an entirely new direction. I'm sure that my conclusions would include some exposure of the forces at work around the Abbasid Dynasty.
On the back cover of the book is a blurb about how all the neo-cons that got us into the war and the theo-cons that we're supposed to be at war with should take the time to read this narrative of the dynasty that Osama and his boys wish to recreate. This is just marketing. All the neo-cons in the present administration are smart people, they're wrong in the conclusions that they reach, but they're still pretty smart people. They are amongst the best and brightest and their educational resume should reflect this. Literature, art, philosophy, government; these are subject areas that most of these people have studied at length. They are the product of a classical education. A classical education includes all the information that is put forth in the book, these people already know this stuff. It might give them a little more information on the subject covered but the style, the body and the conclusions are all something that these men of classical studies are well aware of. Wasn't Plato's Republic required reading in most Ivy league schools? My point is that it is this kind of "classical" review of history that these bozos who decided to invade Iraq based their decision on. Everything in this book feeds into the stereotypes most have of the Arabs, the Middle East and Islam. There is the despotism, the brutality, the oppression and the ignorance that seem to be included in every description of modern politics in this region. It is rumored that democracy and Islam can not coexist, this treatise is one of the reasons that this view is held. More of the legacy of Gibbons. The author even references Gibbons in a footnote. The reference neither clarifies, nor enhances the passage. It is a smugly worded comparison to some of the sexual proclivities of a later Roman Emperor that somehow parallels with the caliph being described. Is crap.
My conclusions? I need to read tales of The Tales of Arabian Nights and The Seven Pillars of Islam. I need to find a "Grand Strategy" book on the Abbisid Dynasty. Wait, there probably aren't any because the same people that write the "Grand Strategy" books have probably also concluded that the Islamic societal and cultural structures preclude the development of a "Grand Strategy".
Nope, this is a companion reader for Tales of the Arabian Nights. At best it's a high school level primer for the serious study of Islamic history. Read this book first, then find the library that covers all the subject matter that this book only hints at.
On the back cover of the book is a blurb about how all the neo-cons that got us into the war and the theo-cons that we're supposed to be at war with should take the time to read this narrative of the dynasty that Osama and his boys wish to recreate. This is just marketing. All the neo-cons in the present administration are smart people, they're wrong in the conclusions that they reach, but they're still pretty smart people. They are amongst the best and brightest and their educational resume should reflect this. Literature, art, philosophy, government; these are subject areas that most of these people have studied at length. They are the product of a classical education. A classical education includes all the information that is put forth in the book, these people already know this stuff. It might give them a little more information on the subject covered but the style, the body and the conclusions are all something that these men of classical studies are well aware of. Wasn't Plato's Republic required reading in most Ivy league schools? My point is that it is this kind of "classical" review of history that these bozos who decided to invade Iraq based their decision on. Everything in this book feeds into the stereotypes most have of the Arabs, the Middle East and Islam. There is the despotism, the brutality, the oppression and the ignorance that seem to be included in every description of modern politics in this region. It is rumored that democracy and Islam can not coexist, this treatise is one of the reasons that this view is held. More of the legacy of Gibbons. The author even references Gibbons in a footnote. The reference neither clarifies, nor enhances the passage. It is a smugly worded comparison to some of the sexual proclivities of a later Roman Emperor that somehow parallels with the caliph being described. Is crap.
My conclusions? I need to read tales of The Tales of Arabian Nights and The Seven Pillars of Islam. I need to find a "Grand Strategy" book on the Abbisid Dynasty. Wait, there probably aren't any because the same people that write the "Grand Strategy" books have probably also concluded that the Islamic societal and cultural structures preclude the development of a "Grand Strategy".
Nope, this is a companion reader for Tales of the Arabian Nights. At best it's a high school level primer for the serious study of Islamic history. Read this book first, then find the library that covers all the subject matter that this book only hints at.